cq_zones_lookupLook up a CQ zone by number to get its name, member entities and subdivisions, boundaries, ADIF codes, and citation for WAZ/ADIF mapping.
One CQ zone: its name and every entity, subdivision and boundary CQ lists for it, with ADIF codes and the citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | A CQ zone number, 1 to 40. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the structural annotations (readOnlyHint: true) by providing rich behavioral context regarding the *output* data: what specific components (entity lists, boundaries, ADIF codes, citation) are provided, which informs the agent about the depth of the lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is highly efficient; a single, clear sentence captures the resource, the scope, and the specific data points returned without any extraneous language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the input schema and safety annotations are comprehensive, the description is complete by focusing on the unique value of the lookup—the inclusion of detailed information like boundaries and ADIF codes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already details the 'code' parameter. The description provides context that confirms the input is a 'CQ zone number, 1 to 40,' meeting the baseline score for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is highly specific, stating that it retrieves a single CQ zone's details, including its name and a list of its entities, subdivisions, and boundaries with ADIF codes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives, the description clearly defines its function as a granular lookup for a single zone, implicitly distinguishing it from broader search or code-listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.